Necessary CookiesNecessary Cookies cannot be unchecked, because they are necessary for our website to function properly. They store your language, currency, shopping cart and login credentials.

Analytics CookiesWe use google.com analytics and bing.com to monitor site usage and page statistics to help us improve our website. You may turn this on or off using the tick boxes above.

Marketing CookiesMarketing Cookies do track personal data. Google and Bing monitor your page views and purchases for use in advertising and re-marketing on other websites. You may turn this on or off using the tick boxes above.

Social CookiesThese 3rd Party Cookies do track personal data. This allows Facebook, Twitter and Pinterest integration. eg. shows the Facebook 'LIKE' button. They will however be able to view what you do on our website. You may turn this on or off using the tick boxes above.

Posted:7th Oct 2004Really tricky, and I dont recommend them unless one is confident with isolations, otherwise they look quite ugly.

The essence of hybrid moves is to play an isolation with one, and an extension with the other hand.

In an isolation your hand is spinning Opposite to the Poi-head - and in an extension your hand is spinning With the Poi-head -> So with hybrid moves: If you spin your hands sametime the Poi swing splittime and the other way round.

Try this: Wheel-plane. Shorten only one Poi and play an extension (bigger circle) - play an isolation with the other hand. Hands sametime

Once one gets the feeling all moves are possible this way. I recommend starting with 3beat weaves.

Posted:3rd Jun 2010Sister_Eleven: If he is cool, bounce it over. Think he will be though. Unless this was discussed on Wave and I missed it, which is also possible.

I missed some of his tech blogs, so not sure if he refined the definitions more. I tend to lump them together for my own purposes, since there are those annoying overlaps.

Query: why would static spin vs extension not be a hybrid? Are you ruling out static spin as a driving style at all?

Unregistered: :blink: Do some background reading, the info is out there. For all I know, it is in this thread. It is definitely on the forum, but I am not going to do a search. Or go look at Drex's tech blogs, I think it was somewhere in the 60s where he tackled this, the first was Insignia's hybrids if I remember correctly.

'We're all mad here. I'm mad, you're mad." [said the Cat.]"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice."You must be," said the Cat, "Or you wouldn't have come here."- Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures In Wonderland

Posted:3rd Jun 2010Re: the query -- Drex at one point suggested defining hybrids as movements where poi and hands were in different timing/direction combinations. He suggested this because of (what he did not describe this way, but which amounts to) difficulties in individuating driving styles. I agree with his line of reasoning and rule out the existence of driving styles.

His symmetry theory came about as a response to an apparent counterexample, the static spin vs. extension hybrid. However, I think the symmetry definition may suffer some problems as it stands, mostly in the direction of being too weak--it seems to allow things as hybrids that no one wants to call hybrids, or it allows troublesome ambiguities.

As I've mentioned in another thread, I think timing/direction pairs are easy to individuate. If I rule out driving styles, and reject the symmetry definition, this leaves the timing/direction disparity theory, which doesn't admit the static spin vs. extension combination. But excluding it is a small price to pay for the most coherent definition available.

That said, I would really just like to see an extension of the asymmetry theory, though i don't know what a powerful enough extension would really look like.

Posted:4th Jun 2010How would you call the original hybrids then ? The old hybrid, linear isolation? You say hybrid theory was brought to higher level of undestanding, but I don't see written any word or com-plete definiton about it. No examples, no proves.

How can I take it serious then? But it's sure wrong if I have differnt point of view and disagree. Well done..

You say Drex, but he didn't write a line here..

Take all the questions into new thread and lets makeserious technical discussion.

Posted:4th Jun 2010The evidence (since I approach poi theory kinda formally, I prefer to reserve the word "proof" for formal deductions) of a change in terminological convention is everyone telling you you're misusing the word. I think that's happened. Seriously, it's not as if there's an objective, speech-community independent meaning for the letter string "hybrid" and one has to see it correctly; that's voodoo linguistics.

Things like Drex's definitions are not universally accepted, but very nearly everyone accepts exclusive combinations of any of in-spin, antispin, isolation, extension, and cat-eyes as hybrids. That's a fact you have to deal with, even if they don't agree on the reasons for grouping these together. To answer your question, the original hybrids are still hybrids, they're just not the only hybrids.

Posted:5th Jun 2010Originally Posted By: Sister ElevenRe: the query -- Drex at one point suggested defining hybrids as movements where poi and hands were in different timing/direction combinations. He suggested this because of (what he did not describe this way, but which amounts to) difficulties in individuating driving styles. I agree with his line of reasoning and rule out the existence of driving styles.

Will have to think about this a bit longer. I also dislike the driving style definition, mostly because "driving style" is such a nebulous term in itself, which is why I liked Drex's definition, but I think I missed his later refinement. A large part of the problem seems to come from what is a CAP and what is a hybrid though.

Unregistered: Yeah. We are arguing terminology here. Even if you do not view certain combinations of timing and direction and such as hybrids, if everyone else does, you are either going to have to come up with a coherent reason why we should change said terminology, or change your own mind. In a case like this, it is up to you to provide evidence. And using the original definitions will not work, simply because poi has moved on since then, so most people view those as incomplete. (As an analogy, no one argues that Newton's laws are wrong for certain, simple, cases, but they break down under others, so you need a different framework to describe behaviour of things in those problematic cases.)

If you want to argue that an anti-spin vs extension is not a hybrid, then what is it?

In summary, you are free to disagree with us, just that if you are trying to establish a point of view that differs from the mainstream, be prepared to be shot down unless you can show that your point of view is better. (In this case a minimum would be that your system of nomenclature can remove ambiguity in the definition [which you do, by sticking to "A hybrid is made of extension and isolation"] and allow a framework for other moves that are related [eg: extension vs static spin, cateye vs antispin, cateye vs extension, antispin vs extension etc, which you have not, at least that I have seen].)

'We're all mad here. I'm mad, you're mad." [said the Cat.]"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice."You must be," said the Cat, "Or you wouldn't have come here."- Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures In Wonderland